Classical philosophy and Darwinian biology are far more compatible than is usually assumed. In fact, looking at either from the standpoint of the other can enrich and deepen our appreciation of both. From a Darwinian point of view, the theories of Plato and Aristotle deserve to be taken very seriously. From the classical point of view, Darwinian biology is much less reductionist than its enemies suppose.

Saturday, February 9, 2013

Virtue & Slavery

In Chapter 5 of Intelligent Virtue, Julie Annas uses the question of slavery to illustrate her point that
virtue ethics can be the basis for challenging one’s own society and its moral
positions.She gives us two examples:
the ancient stoics and the modern anti-slavery movement in Britain.

The Stoics recognized that
slavery was merely conventional and always unjust, as all human beings are
rational beings, capable of developing virtue.The stoics could not advocate the abolition of slavery, as such was not
possible given the structure of classical civilization.However, they did demand that slave owners
recognize the fundamental humanity of their slaves and treat them with as much
respect and dignity as possible.Annas
thinks that this was a remarkable moral achievement, given the circumstances.I think she is right on all counts.

The modern anti-slavery
movement, by contrast, was both possible and ultimately successful because of changes
in political economy.It depended, she
argues, on thinking in terms of virtue.That allowed anti-slavery advocates to recognize that they formed a
community of virtuous persons.Here, I
think, the connection between moral progress and virtue thinking is much
weaker.While it is doubtless true that modern
anti-slavery activists recognized the equality of human beings as rational and
morally responsible creatures just as the stoics did, it is less clear to me
that they generally held to some kind of virtue ethics.One could just as easily imagine both
utilitarian and deontological arguments against slavery.

I would also take issue with
Annas’ brief remarks about Aristotle’s account of slavery.She says this:

As far as most people [in ancient Roman society] were
concerned, there had always been slavery and there was no reason to think it
would not always be there.Aristotle
relies on this thought when he says that is natural; something so ubiquitous
that it must have some basis in nature.

Aristotle says nothing of the
kind.In his treatment of slavery in
Book 1 of the Politics, he lays down
the conditions that would have to be met for slavery to be just by nature.The difference in moral and intellectual
capacity between the master and the slave would have to be as great as that
between human beings and cattle or that between the mind and the body.Natural slaves would have be, in effect,
human bodies without human heads.

That standard effectively rules
out all actually existing slavery and certainly slavery as it existed in
ancient Greece.The Greeks routinely
enslaved other Greeks.Aristotle
recognized as clearly as the Stoics that actual slavery was conventional rather
than natural and that slavery depended on telling lies about the superiority of
the masters over their chattel.

Aristotle writes very carefully,
considering the logical implications of different arguments about slavery while
being very coy about which, if any, he agrees with.The reasons for his caution are laid out well
by Annas in her treatment of the Stoics.It did not seem possible, in the context of classical civilization, to
abolish slavery.His reasoning, however,
leaves no doubt that slavery was fundamentally unjust and that the status of
master and slave existed by mere convention.

I think that Aristotle supports
rather than constitutes an exception to Annas’ point: that virtue ethics can
and inevitably will be the basis for social criticism rather than being merely
conservative in his horizons.